Anderz

In Islam just as in Christianity there is a debate regarding Allah/God doing everything vs free will: "We can divide those who believe in destiny into two major categories. Those with the commonly held blind belief in destiny portray it as predetermination by God of everything big and small. This view is popular with some cryptic sects of Sufis (mystics), who live a life apart from the common people. They claim that man has no control over anything. Everything is predetermined. As such all that happens is the unfolding of the grand plan of destiny, known only to God. This is a very problematic concept of the plan of things and inevitably leads to the question of crime and punishment, penalty and reward. If a man has no choice, then there should be neither punishment nor reward for his actions." - https://www.alislam.org/book/study-of-islam/predestiny-and-free-will/ My model is exactly as the Sufi claim! At least if the article is correct about the part about Sufis. The problem mentioned in the quote is resolved by distinguishing between first and second order reality. Sufis are mystics, the masters of Sufism have realized the first order reality. Ordinary people on the other hand, we are stuck on the level of second order reality, and from that more limited perspective it appears to be a problem with personal responsibility and punishment and so on. As I wrote earlier, personal responsibility dissolves on the level of first order reality.

Here I found an interesting passage in ACIM about sin vs error: "T-19.II.1. It is essential that error be not confused with sin, and it is this distinction that makes salvation possible. 2 For error can be corrected, and the wrong made right. 3 But sin, were it possible, would be irreversible." - https://acourseinmiraclesnow.com/course-miracles-chapter-19-ii-sin-versus-error/ I have previously equated sin with error. ACIM's explanation is better depending on what definition is used. Sin is actually an illusion. There IS no sin, now that I look at it from a larger perspective. Tricky! An error such as 7 + 9 = 14 can be corrected into 7 + 9 = 16. Sin on the other hand is the belief in total separation. To correct sin requires a leap into a new context, while an ordinary error can be corrected within the same context. The tricky part is that there is no sin as in wrongdoing because sin is a necessary and temporary development "tool" and sin is a part of what currently is.

Christianity is still my favorite religion although as I see it it's "just" a model, like all religions. My model (as I have already mentioned before but anyway) also includes all the other major religions, including Buddhism which doesn't even have the concept of a God. Even atheism is included in my model. In a way Buddhism fits better with my model of God: "Hinayana Buddhism, consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity.[1][2] It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator. Buddhism posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be a creator.[3] Buddhist ontology follows the doctrine of Dependent Origination, whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned. However, Mahayana Buddhism does believe in the doctrine of Sunyata (emptiness) or Tathata (thatness) out of which all things emerge. Furthermore, this ultimate reality is considered to be the Tathagatagarbha (Womb of all Buddhas) and the Adi Buddha (Primordial Buddha) who is worshipped differently in various Mahayana traditions as Vairocana or Amitabha and in the Vajrayana traditions as Samantabhadra or Vajradhara. Thus this concept of an ultimate reality which is the source of all things approximates the idea of a creator God." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism In my model God is not an active creator. God in my model is like Brahman, timeless and changeless. In the Bible it may seem that we humans have free will and God has another will, but I have found many passages in the Bible which describe that God does everything, and definitely ACIM agrees with this view: "There is no will but God’s." - https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-74/

Ouch! Yikes, I found something in ACIM that I disagree with: "One holy thought like this and you are free: You are the holy Son of God Himself." - https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-191/ Okay, from a oneness perspective one can say that everything is the Word of God made manifest, meaning Christ. However my definition of Christ is like in Christianity, that there is only ONE Christ and that we humans are NOT Christ. And from an atheistic perspective, in my model Christ means the manifestation of the Word of God. This fits precisely with the Bible which says that Christ is one with the Father yet the Father is greater than Christ. The manifestation of reality has infinite potential and will never end, yet the manifestation is always finite. Christ is the way and the truth and the life. And also, Christ can only do what the Father says, which is the Word of God. Christ started at the beginning (before Abraham was I am, Jesus said). Our human souls on the other hand started at later points in time. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. The end is the ongoing edge of creation in the present moment. So Christ has a definite and precise end in that sense while God the Father is endless and infinite. How can our individual souls start at a certain point in time? Aren't souls timeless? Yes, souls are timeless. In my model a soul is a unique point within Indra's net and both the point and the net just timelessly are; they are eternal and indestructible. Still, there is a manifestation going on moment by moment which produces the movement of time. A person born today for example, and let's say that it's a new soul, not a reincarnated soul, his or her soul started today! Future souls already timelessly exist within the Word of God and they have not manifested yet, yet they are still eternal changeless points.

ACIM uses the term God. Can there be an atheistic explanation for God? Yes there can! Leo described reality as difference. And I showed earlier how difference gives rise to Indra's net which in turn gives rise to information. God is a subset of Indra's net that results in the Word of God. What is the Word of God? The answer is that the Word of God is infinite information structured by infinite intelligence. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Something like that it says in the Bible (John 1). That's exactly it! The Word of God and God timeless just are. God says in the Bible something like: "I am that I am." Again, precisely correct. So from the atheistic definition of God I used here, God is timeless, changeless and has infinite intelligence.

To recontextualize simply means to switch context. For example, from the context of the ego, personal responsibility is necessary and a virtue. From the larger context of transcending the ego personal responsibility is a sin! That's how radical the meaning of things can change simply by switching context. In ego identification we can sense that there is something wrong with personal responsibility, but only on a feeling level. Personal responsibility generally feels tedious, boring and as a burden. That's reality telling the ego that personal responsibility is actually a sin because the ego is deluded by the belief that it itself has power. The ego has in reality zero power on its own and hence personal responsibility is recognized as a complete fiction from the larger context, hence a mistaken view, an error; missing the mark, meaning sin.

Being selfish in a narrow way keeps me trapped in ego consciousness. What is needed is to become Self-ish! Where the Self is a collective self or else we are back into separation and conflict and ego consciousness again. So the collective Self will happen automatically when we transcend our egos.

One advantage of an integral approach instead of a pure ACIM following is that it makes my ego a part of me instead of something that is deemed as bad. Sure, from a higher perspective the ego IS insane. Still, from an even larger perspective the ego is perfectly healthy and a necessary part of reality. So one trick I came to think of is to just keep identifying with my ego and let the transformation happen automatically. And to focus on inner peace.

Isn't to ask for a miracle that gives eternal life totally unrealistic and even a crazy idea? Maybe! But I'm so fed up will all those lame spiritual teachings out there who claim that the physical body will age and die as usual. Those kinds of parroting teachings are about what I call a mental form of spiritual realization, which totally sucks! Because it's an attempt to sweep the physical body under the rug so to speak. And also, metaphorically speaking, how can we reach the moon when we are only pointing at the tree tops, while believing that we are pointing to the moon?

I'm waiting for my miracle to happen. How will I know that it's an actual miracle and not just my ego mind fooling itself? In the long run I will know since the energy body is a first order structure which means that it can't deteriorate or die. That means eternal life even for my physical body which then becomes an extension of my energy body. In ego identification the physical body deteriorates and dies (not counting transhumanism).

I now want to try a miracle. ACIM says that there are no orders of difficulty of miracles, they are all equally easy. And my explanation for that is that miracles come from the first order intelligence, and that's infinite intelligence (see for example Leo's video about infinite intelligence). So, since all miracles are equally easy, I will start with a for my ego utterly impossible stunt! The physical human body is a second order construct. The first order reality of the body can be called an energy body. The miracle I'm planning for is to move from physical body identification to energy body identification. I think it says in ACIM somewhere that one shouldn't plan one's own miracles like that, but who says that this is my ego doing it?

Here is a lame update from yesterday, but it's at least something: "Washington — The Justice Department's internal watchdog said a highly anticipated report on the department's use of secret surveillance warrants during the Russia investigation is "nearing completion" and will likely be released publicly, according to a letter obtained by CBS News. Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote to congressional leaders on Thursday with an update on his investigation into alleged abuses of warrants obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Horowitz said he expects the report "will be released publicly with few redactions," but declined to provide a timeline." - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-inspector-general-michael-horowitz-says-fisa-report-is-nearing-completion/ Few redactions. Sounds fair enough. Some redactions will likely always be necessary to protect privacy etc.

Hmm... The presenter in the recent videos made a distinction between pain and suffering. I call that a nonduality fallacy. In my opinion pain IS suffering. The mistake all those spiritual teachers make is to contextualize their understanding within the context of today's world. Even the ACIM teachers I have found so far, maybe with the exception of Marianne Williamson, I don't know yet, talk about pain as inevitable. Here is what A Course in Miracles ACTUALLY says about pain: "1. Pain is a wrong perspective. When it is experienced in any form, it is a proof of self-deception." - https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-190/ What is needed is to recontextualize our understanding within a future framework. Tricky, yes, but even Eckhart Tolle talked about the possibility of a totally different reality. I think this is extremely important, nay necessary, for true transcendence of the ego, both of the personal ego and what I call the global ego.

The ego wants to be 100% certain while in reality the ego is NEVER 100% certain about the future. Combine that with the idea of the future being potentially dangerous and the result is an endless struggle and worry. The universe struggling with itself? Yes, ridiculous, isn't it? That's because the ego is a sinful sinner born in sin and living in sin. Sin here of course means missing the mark, and a deliberate tool for growth and development, not some mistake made by Adam and Eve.

Pretty good presentations in the previous videos. Reincarnation was mentioned and I became curious about what ACIM says about reincarnation and found: "M-24.1. In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. 2 There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. 3 Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense." - https://acourseinmiraclesnow.com/course-miracles-manual-teachers-24-reincarnation/ Now it gets tricky for me. My theory says that there is only the present moment and that the past is information in the now. So the past is actually real, not in the sense of an actual dimension, but real as in real information in the now. With my theory there can be reincarnation in the form of information. Personally I do NOT think I have had a previous life, but I do believe it's possible to tap into past lives of people who have lived throughout history, kind of like accessing a form of Akashic record. The tricky part is that my theory seems to disagree with ACIM which says that there is no past or future. I need to look deeper into what ACIM means by that. If it means that the past doesn't exist as something outside of the present moment, then ACIM and my theory are in agreement.

Oh! The presenter in the previous video mentioned A Course in Miracles. That explains why my self-bias was confirmed. Here is another video about the ego that was mentioned:

Just to prove that Actualized.org is NOT a cult , I will here post a competitor's view of the ego: I haven't listened to the whole video yet, but it started with an excellent description of the unreality of the ego, which is I believe what the aim of ACIM is to point out too.

Isn't the idea that reality is changeless overall depressing? Only if reality is producing decay, accidents and randomness. Decay is only a second order phenomena. The first order reality is indestructible. Personally I think it's a great realization to recognize the powerlessness of the ego. Do I know for certain that things will get better, including for myself? No, but I believe that reality will improve and that it will happen automatically. This can still require personal effort sometimes because even that can be a part of the automatic process, so it's a bit tricky at first.

My view is that reality is changeless when seen as a totality. One consequence of that is that we can drop forgiveness, blame and guilt, because that's just a misperception of reality made by the ego. ACIM says the same thing basically: "Forgiveness recognizes what you thought your brother did to you has not occurred. It does not pardon sins and make them real. It sees there was no sin. And in that view are all your sins forgiven." - https://acim.org/workbook/what-is-1/

Ok, so how to deal with money in an integral way. How is saying that money in itself lacking meaning from a holistic perspective going to pay my bills? First we can notice that money is a third order structure, which means money can't be replaced by a second order structure such as air or dirt. Secondly, money provides a lot of structure to society, and within that context money serves a crucial role. Thirdly, money is like the blood flow in society and when people hoard millions of dollars or when the money is distributed too unequal then that's like a cardiovascular vascular disease in society. And also, money, like all third order structures, is controlled by the first order intelligence. Everything is! So the integral perspective is to recognize the value money has within the context of society and in one's own life and at the same time realize that the ultimate control of money is deeper than on the level of money itself.

Isn't money more important than say air or dirt? Meaning depends on context, and sure, in the ego context money is way more important than air and dirt. Hence sayings such as "money out of thin air", "money doesn't grow on trees", "right on the money" and "take it to the bank". Marianne Williamson use to say in talks about a situation where one has been scammed or something like that: "I accept your apology but I would also want my money back" and then people in the audience laugh. That's the laughter of the ego and reveals what people really think about money, how important money is, how to them money is way more important than the apology. From a holistic perspective meaning disappears. To the ego that is horrible and gives the impression of a bleak meaninglessness. What the ego fails to recognize is that the lack of meaning here is because of lack of context. A holistic perspective includes everything and thus doesn't have any larger context to give it meaning. From a holistic perspective money, air and dirt are equally important.

I think of what ACIM calls special relationships as not only between the ego and other people but also between the ego and money. To the ego money is very special. Notice again that "special" here doesn't mean grand or precious. When ACIM talks about special relationships then it's about relationships that are unholy. And that's why the "love of money" is the root of all evil. The ego has in its own mind turned money into something special, as something separate from other things which the ego thinks of as lesser and thereby made money "special", meaning unholy, which leads to evil. The ego is blind to this logic and sees money as its savior and as something leading to good while in reality the ego's love of money leads to evil, both for itself and others.

I love how ACIM is extremely hardcore, but how to get an integral perspective which might be missing when contrasting fear and love and the ego and the Holy Spirit? Take money again, it seems that of course money has power, money has huge power in the world today. That's true but it's still only a third order construct! Only the first order reality has power (called God in ACIM). The integral approach is that yes, money has power and material things are important, and at the same time all those things are recognized as being given power by the deeper foundation of reality, the first order intelligence. In practice this means that money will continue to be the main "glue" and "energy flow" within society for decades to come. That's perfectly fine as long as we realize that the power is not in the money itself and is just a tool. The first order intelligence, when activated within us, will use money correctly, even our own personal finances will be correctly managed.

Money is a third order construct since it is a creation of us humans who are a second order construct. "In this world, you believe you are sustained by everything but God. Your faith is placed in the most trivial and insane symbols; pills, money, “protective” clothing, influence, prestige, being liked, knowing the “right” people, and an endless list of forms of nothingness that you endow with magical powers." - https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-50/ So how can the love of money be the root of all evil? It's because as it says in the ACIM quote, the ego sees only second and third order power and completely misses the first order power which the ego is unaware of. Everything the ego does become twisted, distorted and leads to conflict because of failing to understand that by itself the ego has zero power and all second and third order constructs have zero power.

"M-27.1. Death is the central dream from which all illusions stem. 2 Is it not madness to think of life as being born, aging, losing vitality, and dying in the end? 3 We have asked this question before, but now we need to consider it more carefully. 4 It is the one fixed, unchangeable belief of the world that all things in it are born only to die. 5 This is regarded as "the way of nature," not to be raised to question, but to be accepted as the "natural" law of life. 6 The cyclical, the changing and unsure; the undependable and the unsteady, waxing and waning in a certain way upon a certain path,--all this is taken as the Will of God. 7 And no one asks if a benign Creator could will this." - https://acourseinmiraclesnow.com/course-miracles-manual-teachers-27-death/ Death is a result of the ego. Transcending the ego means transcending death. It's not that we humans are like cells in a larger planetary organism called Gaia. We will become Gaia. Our physical body will become the whole planet earth. And so to die in that stage would be to die as a whole planet! Won't happen. Death is a second order phenomena, and to ego death is real, for the ego is itself a second order phenomena, and so is the physical body. Transcending the ego also means transcending the physical body. Again, it's an integral process so we will still have physical bodies but they will be filled with first order intelligence instead of decaying by aging and dying.